2.Defendant
No. 2 in the Original Suit No. 358 of 1988 filed in the Court of the Additional
Civil Judge, Hubli is the appellant, herein.

Defendant No. 1 -
Respondent No. 8 herein is a charitable trust. By a registered deed dated
5.07.1951, the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 purchased the lease hold rights in
respect of the land together with the superstructure 2 standing thereupon from
Shri Hasansab Bepari. In the year 1955, the original defendant No. 1 filed a
suit against several persons. Plaintiff got herself impleaded as a defendant
therein. Defendant No. 1, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff had
already purchased the superstructure, agreed to sell the land to her by an
agreement dated 26.02.1980 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. Out of the said
amount, a sum of Rs.8000/- was paid by way of earnest money.

The relevant term of
the said agreement reads as under:

"The said
Rayanal math, being a public math, the necessary permission required to sell
the said math properties shall be obtained from the Charity Commissioner,
Belgaum and the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, and after intimating you about
the same and receiving the balance consideration amount within one month
thereafter, sale deed shall be executed in the presence of the
sub-registrar".

3.Admittedly,
in terms of the said agreement, permission from the Charity Commissioner in
terms of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was required to be taken. On
or about 30.10.1982, an order was passed by the Charity Commissioner directing
that the land should be sold in public auction and the highest bidder should be
permitted to purchase the suit land.

3 Defendant No. 1,
purported to be in pursuance thereof and in furtherance of the said order, by a
notice dated 22.04.1983, stated:

Therefore, you are
hereby informed that my client intends to conduct the public auction as per the
order of the Charity Commissioner within a few days. If you intend to purchase
the said property you may participate in the public auction. You will be
entitled to adjust the earnest money paid by you against the bid amount. In
case you are unable to purchase the said properties in the public auction, my
client is willing to refund the balance of the earnest money paid by you after
deducting appropriate amount as mesne profits you your (sic) occupation till
now. You are entitled to receive such amount. You may understand that the
contracts till now are cancelled. This notice dated 22.4.1983 is for your
information."

4.Indisputably,
the said order of the Charity Commissioner was set aside by the High Court and
the matter was remitted directing it to pass a fresh order. The Charity
Commissioner in his order dated 15.04.1987 noticed that the appellant herein
had been in possession of the suit property.

A deed of sale was
executed in his favour by the defendant No. 1 on or about 12.05.1988.

5.Plaintiff
- Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of the said
agreement dated 26.02.1980 and furthermore questioned the validity of the said
deed of sale dated 12.05.1988 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hubli,
praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

"It is,
therefore, humbly prayed that, the sale in favour of Defendant No. 2 by the
Defendant No. 1 being not binding upon the plaintiff, as it is in derogation of
the right of the plaintiff to purchase the suit property by a sale agreement
dated 26.2.1980; be cancelled by a decree with an ancillary relief of a decree
for specific performance against the Defendant No. 1, directing the Defendant
No. 1 to sell the suit property to plaintiff at the value at which it has been
sold to the Defendant No. 2. In case, if the Defendant No. 1 declines to or
does not execute the sale deed of the suit property on receipt of balance of
consideration in pursuance of a contract of sale dated 26.2.1980, a Court
Commissioner, it is prayed, shall be appointed to execute the sale deed on
behalf of the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff at the cost of
Defendant No. 1 or in the alternative, if this Hon'ble Court does not grant a
decree for specific performance, the decree for refund of the earnest money of
Rs. 8000/- from Defendant No. 1 payable to plaintiff, at the rate of interest
of Rs. 18% per annum on the principle of Rs. 8000/- from 26.2.1980, be
passed."

5 It is not in
dispute that the appellant was a nephew of the husband of the plaintiff. He was
not in sound financial position. Only out of compassion, the husband of the
plaintiff - respondent No. 1 permitted the appellant and his father to live in
the suit premises as licensees for a short period. After his father's death,
the appellant requested for some more time to vacate.

Appellant, however,
connived with the defendant No. 1 and managed to get the suit property
transferred in his name. Appellant in the said suit not only denied and
disputed the right of the respondent No. 1 to obtain a decree for specific
performance of contract but put forth a plea that he was a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice. It was furthermore contended that the suit was barred
by limitation.

6.The
learned Trial Judge in view of the rival pleadings of the parties inter alia
framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the
plaintiff proves that defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of sale on 26th
February, 1980? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that she was ever ready and
willing to perform her part of the contract? 6 (iii) Whether the plaintiff
proves that when the agreement of sale in her favour was in force, defendant
No. 1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 12.5.1988? (iv)
Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 is
not binding on her? (v) Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that the order of
the Charity Commissioner is final? (vi) Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that
he is in possession of suit property from the date of sale in his favour?"

7.By
reason of a judgment and decree dated 22.01.1993, the said suit was decreed by
the learned Trial Judge, stating:

"28. In the
light of the above position of law, we have to come to a just decision of the
case.

Defendant No. 1 says
that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff become
impossible since the charity commissioner did not permit to sell, but asked to
sell by public auction. The record goes to show that the order of the charity
commissioner dated 30-10-1982 as above was quashed in Cr. P. On the other hand,
the Hon'ble High Court observed that the present defendant No. 1 stands himself
committed to the petitioner and the charity commissioner is required to
consider the agreement of sale. Under the circumstances, there was an
opportunity to defendant No. 1 to call upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed
executed, but he did not. Even 7 otherwise, the order dated 15-4-1987 also is
no way restrain defendant No. 1 in selling the suit properties to the plaintiff
subject to settlement concerning price. At this juncture as well, there was an
opportunity for defendant No. 1 in asking the plaintiff to get the sale deed
executed, but he did not. We do not find any direction from the charity
commissioner either in the order dated 30.10.1982 or order dated 15-4-1987 that
the suit properties should be sold to defendant No. 2 only.

There was no
pre-existing right with defendant No. 2 to purchase the suit properties from
defendant No. 1. In this connection, counsel for plaintiff has argued that it
is a plot created by the defendants and there upon (sic) have brought the sale
deed in favour of defendant no. 2. To put in other words, the order dated
15-4-1987 was not so fundamental as to be regarded by law as striking at the
root of the contract. Thus, execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
was not impossible from the point of view of defendant No. 1. When there was
possibility in performing his part of the contract on the part of defendant No.
1, where would be the question of application of the doctrine of frustration.
Doctrine of frustration would be applicable only when the contract is between
defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff is cancelled. We find no such cancellation of
the said agreement even till today."

The court noticed
that the defendant No. 1 did not examine himself as a witness in the suit and
opined:

"...If defendant
No. 1 had entered into the witness box, cat would have been let out of the bag.
In 8 view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that plaintiff has proved that
when the agreement of sale in her favour was in force, defendant No. 1 executed
a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and we hold that plaintiff has proved
that sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 is not binding on her and
accordingly, issues 3 and 4 are answered."

It was furthermore
held that the appellant is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice,
stating:

"...Under the
circumstances, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that defendant No. 2 is
a bonafide purchaser without notice, of a valid agreement between plaintiff and
defendant No. 2.

These facts
themselves go to show that defendant No. 2 purchased unlawfully, unauthorisedly
and illegally. In this view of the matter, it is held that plaintiff is
entitled to a declaration that sale in favour of defendant No. 2 is not binding
on her and accordingly, it is held that plaintiff has proved issue no. 7."

8.On
the premise that the defendant No. 1 did not obtain the permission of the
Charity Commissioner in which event only the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 could
perform her part of contract, the suit was held to be not barred by the law of
limitation.

9.An
appeal preferred there against was dismissed by the Ist Addl. Distt. Judge,
Dharwad and by a judgment and order dated 22.12.2001, the learned Appellate
Court categorically held:

"24. It is
important to note that the plaintiff had purchased not only the leasehold right
of the land in question and also the superstructure under Ex. P-4 sale deed.
The sale deed is dated 5-7-51.

Thereafter,
continuously, her name finds place in the records and it is evidenced by Ex.
P-2 and 3.

Nowhere at any point
of time, the name of defendant no. 2 appear in any of the records. It is very
well within the knowledge of Deft. No. 1 that the plaintiff had purchased not
only the leasehold rights, but also the superstructure. And thereafter, she
entered into a sale agreement to purchase the suit property. That being so, how
could Deft. No. 1 determine that Deft. No. 2 one was the occupant of the suit
property. None of the defendants appear to have applied their mind to verify
the records to see as to who is in actual possession of the suit property.
Further, Deft. No. 2 also appears to have not made reasonable enquiries about
the title of the suit property. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly
held that he could not be bonafide purchaser of the suit property. Deft. No. 1
before executing the sale deed in favour of Deft. No. 2 could have verified as
to the nature of possession or occupation Deft. No. 2 was having.

Being very well aware
of the subsistence of the sale agreement, it could not have executed the sale
deed in favour of Deft. No. 2 in respect of the suit property. Therefore, it
has to be held that the transaction between the defendants in respect of the
suit property was nothing but suppression of material facts and somehow managed
to complete the sale. Therefore, the learned trial judge has rightly held that
Deft. No. 2 purchased the suit 10 property unlawfully and unauthorisedly and,
thus, it was not binding on the plaintiff. It is also important to note that
the plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint and it has come in the
evidence of PW-1 that they were always ready and willing to perform their part
of the contract..."

10.The
second appeal filed by the appellant thereagainst has been dismissed by the
High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

11.The
substantial questions of law which were framed for its consideration, were:

"1. Whether the
courts below could have decreed the suit for specific performance when
admittedly the suit agreement dated 26-2-1980 between the plaintiff and the 2nd
defendant has been terminated by a cancellation notice dated 22- 4-1983 and in
the circumstances whether the suit for specific performance could be said to be
within limitation"

2. Whether the
property belonging to 2nd defendant which is a charitable institution
registered under the Bombay Trusts Act, could be sold without the permission of
the charity commissioner?

3. Whether the courts
below had jurisdiction to alter the terms of the contract as done now in the
impugned decree?"

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.The High Court
answered all the said questions in favour of the respondent No.1, opining:

"In the instant
case, as noticed, the contract entered into is more in the form of a contingent
contract. The first permission which was accorded by the charity commissioner
was not in a good spirit as held by this Court and the same was quashed in the
writ petition. Thereafter, the second permission was granted in the year 1987
which was almost nearer to the terms of the contract entered into between the
plaintiff and 1st defendant except the variation in the rate of the land and
the condition that the sale could be made in favour of the occupant of the
property. The suit is filed subsequently i.e. within 1 = years and it cannot be
said that it is beyond limitation. As such, the first substantial question has
to be answered in favour of the respondent.

It is seen that both
the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have held that the
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and also
that the sale by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is not binding on the
plaintiff. There is also a finding that the 2nd defendant has not proved that
he is in possession of the suit property. While decreeing the suit for specific
performance, the trial court has observed that the 2nd defendant is not a
bonafide purchaser for value without notice. This is more a question of fact
finding the same has been confirmed by the lower appellate court. It is also
noticed that the contract is subsisting between the plaintiff and the 1st
defendant and that the 1st defendant illegally executed the sale deed in favour
of the 2nd defendant. The trial court 12 having noticed that the relief of
specific performance is a matter of discretion and has to be exercised
sparingly, has come to the conclusion that there are no valid and cogent
grounds to refuse the decree of specific performance in favour of the
plaintiff."

(i) Having regard to
Article 54(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit being barred by limitation,
no decree for specific performance of contract could have been passed, and (ii)
In any event, it was not a case where the court should have exercised its discretionary
jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

13.Mr. Rajesh Mahale,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand,
urged:

(i) By reason of the
purported notice dated 22.04.1983, the agreement was not legally cancelled.

(ii) In any event,
the said purported notice being passed on the order of the Charity Commissioner
dated 30.10.1982 which having been set aside, limitation would run only from
the date when the Charity Commissioner passed its order dated 15.04.1987 and
not prior thereto.

(iii) In the suit,
the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 having not only prayed for a decree for
specific performance of contract but also for cancellation of the deed of sale,
it was for the defendant No. 2 to show that he had acquired a valid title
thereto.

(iv) In any event,
the courts below having arrived at a finding of fact that it was the plaintiff
alone who was in possession of the land even in terms of the order of the
Charity Commissioner, the land in suit should have been transferred in favour
of the respondent No. 1.

14.In terms of the
aforementioned agreement dated 26.02.1980, it was obligatory on the part of the
defendant No. 1 to obtain the permission of the Charity Commissioner in terms
of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, which reads as under:

"(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of trust, (a) No sale,
exchange or gift of any immovable property; and (b) No lease for a period
exceeding ten years in the case of agriculture land or for a period exceeding
three years in the case of non agriculture land or a building belonging to a
public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the charity
commissioner may be accorded subject to such condition as the charity
commissioner may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest, benefit
or protection of the trust.

(c) If the charity
commissioner is satisfied that in the interest of any public trust any
immovable property thereof should be disposed of, he may on application, authorise
any trustee to dispose of such property subject to such condition as he may
think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest or benefit or protection
of the trust."

15.The fact that as far
back as in 1951, the plaintiff purchased the superstructure standing on the
land is not in dispute. Defendant no. 1 had filed a suit against the alleged
trespassers. Originally, the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party therein.
She got herself impleaded as a party at a later stage of the suit. She was
arrayed as the defendant No. 3. Plaintiff evidently was not found to be a
trespasser. Only because the land on which the superstructure stood belonged to
the trust, the agreement of sale was 15 entered into. It was the only sensible
way of doing justice to the parties.

Respondent No. 1 is a
lady. She must have relied upon the defendant No. 1.

16.In view of the
concurrent finding of fact, there is no escape from the conclusion that the
defendant No. 2 - appellant was a licensee under the plaintiff. He, therefore,
did not have any independent title or legal possession. Even if he and his
father were in possession of a part of the property, the same was for and on
behalf of the plaintiff.

It may be true that
the Charity Commissioner directed that instead of giving effect to the
agreement dated 26.02.1980, the same should be sold in auction but we have
noticed hereinbefore that the said order has been set aside by the High Court.
It was non est in the eye of law. If that order has been set aside by the High
Court pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof the purported notice dated
22.04.1983 was issued, the performance of contract became dependant upon a
fresh order which was to be passed by the Charity Commissioner. The Charity
Commissioner could not have ignored the fact that the superstructure standing
on the land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff - respondent No. 1. It
was, therefore, fair and equitable to allow the said agreement to be given
effect to. Even otherwise the Charity Commissioner was to grant permission to
the defendant No. 1 to 16 sell the property in favour of the plaintiff. It
could not have issued a direction which was otherwise not sustainable. It could
not have ignored the fact that the plaintiff was the owner of the
superstructure of the property and was, thus, in lawful possession thereof as
well as the fact that the defendant No. 2 was a mere licensee. We do now know
what transpired before the Charity Commissioner but even if his order dated
15.04.1987 was to be enforced, the same could be done irrespective of the
aforementioned agreement dated 26.02.1980. Even in terms of the said order, it
was the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone in whose favour the deed of sale
could be executed. Inter alia on a wrong premise that the appellant herein was
in possession of the said property, the deed of sale was executed on 12.05.1988
for the sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Evidently, the defendant No. 1 obtained a higher
amount. He even had not refunded the earnest money paid by the plaintiff -
respondent No. 1. There was no occasion for him to put the appellant in
independent possession of the property, as he himself was not in possession
thereof, at least since 1951. Even otherwise, being in continuous possession of
the superstructure from 1951, the title of the defendant No. 1 became
extinguished.

17.Defendant No. 1 for
reasons best known to him did not examine himself in the suit. It is not in
dispute that he had served similar notices to 17 other persons in whose
favour, having regard to the judgment passed in the suit bearing No. L.C. No.
11 of 1955, agreements for sale were entered into.

Once the said order
of the Charity Commissioner was set aside, steps taken pursuant thereto also
became non est in the eye of law as the Charity Commissioner was to apply his
mind afresh for enabling him to exercise his jurisdiction in terms of Section
36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.

Relationship of
vendor and vendee between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff, therefore,
continued. If that be so, the suit for specific performance was maintainable.

18.Even otherwise in a
case of this nature, it is eminently fit and proper that this court with a view
to do complete justice to the parties should exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Equity in this
case, however, has to be balanced. On the one hand, the defendant No. 1 is an
old lady and her interest is required to be upheld, on the other, the appellant
has also invested a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in 1988 and since then he has been in possession
of a part of the property as a vendee in terms of the said registered deed of
sale dated 12.05.1988. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of
justice would be subserved if the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 is directed to
pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- by 18 way of compensation to the appellant. For
arriving at the said figure, we have not only taken into consideration the
inflation in real estate market, but also the fact that the appellant has been
in possession of a part of the property as a licensee of plaintiff - respondent
No. 1.

Although the
appellant is a party to the illegality, we do not intend to deprive him of the
amount which he had invested and that is the principal reason we thought that
he would be fully compensated if the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 is directed
to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- in his favour being three times of the amount
that he had paid to the defendant No. 1 by way of consideration for the
execution of the deed of sale dated 12.05.1988.

We direct
accordingly.

Appellant shall
vacate the premises within one month from the date of deposit of the amount of
Rs.2,25,000/- by the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 in the Court of learned Trial
Judge and execute a registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff -
respondent No. 1. In the event, appellant vacates the premises he would be
entitled to withdraw the said sum failing which it would be open to the
respondent No. 1 to execute the decree passed in her favour by the learned
Trial Judge forthwith and in which event he would be liable to pay all costs to
the plaintiff including the costs incurred by him in 19 this Court. Defendant
No. 1 shall also refund the amount of earnest money of Rs. 8000/- to the
plaintiff with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
institution of suit till realisation as he cannot be permitted to enrich
himself unjustly.

19.For the reasons
aforementioned, this appeal is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned
hereinbefore as also with the aforementioned observations and directions. No
costs.